CONCORDThe New Hampshire Supreme Court has approved a modernized revision of the
Code of Judicial Conduct that sets out detailed ethical standards and provides specific
guidance to judges for maintaining those standards in their personal and professional
life.

The updated code, which takes effect October 1, is largely based on the American Bar
Associations 1990 "Model Code of Judicial Conduct" which is the standard
used by many court systems around the country. In developing the revised code, the
justices also considered New Hampshires existing code of judicial conduct and
recommendations made in January by the Supreme Courts "Task Force for the
Renewal of Judicial Conduct Procedures."

Chief Justice David A. Brock said the courts adoption of the revised code is in
keeping with its longstanding responsibility to oversee the conduct of judges. He said the
updated rules recognize that the role of judges has changed since the Supreme Court first
adopted the code in 1973.

"Judges are expected to be more active in court administration, in the legislature
and in public education about the judicial system," Brock said. "The revised
code gives judges clear guidelines to follow as they meet their responsibilities in the
courtroom and in their communities and it provides reasonable standards for evaluating
their conduct when complaints are filed," he added, speaking for the full court.

Efforts to revise the code began in 1993 with the courts rules committee and
included gathering comment from the public on proposed changes. The newly adopted code
includes five "Canons," which set out broad standards for judicial conduct,
followed by specific rules. The court has also adopted relevant portions of the ABA
commentary on the Canons and rules, which uses detailed examples to explain their purpose
and meaning.

The commentary notes that judges must expect to be "the subject of constant public
scrutiny" and must be willing to accept restrictions on their behavior that ordinary
citizens might find "burdensome."

At the same time the revised code and commentary note that judges should not be
"isolated" from their community and should be encouraged to participate in
efforts to promote the fair administration of justice.

The revised code:

Requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself from a case if the judges
impartiality might be questioned by a reasonable, disinterested person fully informed of
the facts.

Allows a judge to remain on a case if the judges economic interest in the case is
"insignificant" and would not cause a reasonable, disinterested person, fully
informed of the facts, to question the judges impartiality

Specifies that judges cannot join clubs that discriminate on the basis of race, sex,
religion, or national origin.

Specifies that judges shall not manifest any bias or prejudice based on race, sex,
religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. A
judge must require lawyers, staff and court officials and others under their control to
refrain from demonstrating any such bias.

Retains a requirement recently added to the existing code, which says that a full-time
judge who teaches must get written approval in advance from the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. Calendar year earnings are limited to 15 percent of the judges salary
unless the Supreme Court unanimously approves an exception.

Requires appropriate action if a judge has knowledge that there is a substantial
likelihood that another judge or a lawyer has violated the applicable rules of conduct.
The ABA commentary states appropriate action may include direct communication, other
direct action if available, or reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.
Conduct codes for judges and lawyers require reporting to the Judicial Conduct Committee
if a judge or lawyer has knowledge that a judge has violated the judicial conduct code in
such a way that raises a substantial question as to the judges fitness for office.

Prohibits judges from commenting on a pending matter if comments might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of a case. This provision does not prohibit a judge from
making comments that are of an educational or instructional nature.